get_amazon_orders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it specifies the return data structure (order summaries with listed fields), mentions optional detailed item data and shipment tracking, and notes performance implications ('Adds ~2s per order' for include_items and include_shipments). However, it does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which are relevant for a tool fetching sensitive order data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specifics on returns and usage. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (e.g., listing return fields, explaining optional features, and stating use cases), with no redundant or vague language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, return data, optional features, and usage context. However, it lacks details on authentication (implied by sibling check_amazon_auth_status but not stated), error scenarios, or pagination/limits beyond max_orders, leaving some gaps for a tool handling sensitive order data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'date range or year' which aligns with start_date/end_date/year parameters, and implies include_items and include_shipments through 'Optionally includes detailed item data... and shipment tracking.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no significant additional semantic insights provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch Amazon order history') and resource ('Amazon order history'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_amazon_order_details (likely for single orders) or export_amazon_orders_csv (for CSV export). It explicitly mentions what data is returned, making the purpose distinct and comprehensive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for browsing order history or building reports'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., vs. get_amazon_order_details for single orders). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.